Could Lucy Letby be innocent?

[Lotobear]

ISTR the NYT ran a sceptical article on the case that cannot be read here - is it now available anywhere?

[LimmerickLad]

My wife is a very senior nurse with almost 50 years in the NHS and undertakes / oversees many internal investigations....she is not fully convinced of Letby's guilt.

[Oliver Hardy]

Tankrizzo said:

I did read the trial coverage at the time and thought the evidence against her seemed largely circumstantial. But I'm not a lawyer or involved in maternity stuff so I can't say if that's enough to make it an unsafe conviction.

Lots of people get convicted on circumstantial evidence

[BikeBikeBIke]

Gareth79 said:

This Telegraph article mentions the statistical evidence, and more:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-l...

I've changed my mind....

Link without paywall.
https://archive.ph/bZIdu

[Senex]

-crookedtail- said:

There is a guy on YouTube who has the transcripts from her cross-examination in court & updates the case including the latest re-trial.

She honestly doesn't come across well, at all i.e. having memory loss when it suits her, explaining why she had confidential documents at home etc

I've no idea why she took the stand, I guess it was her choice. She should have just said nothing at all!

Not exactly massive evidence of being guilty of murder.

I've had memory loss that could possibly be construed as it suiting me. I've had 'confidential' work documents at home.

[Super Sonic]

BikeBikeBIke said:

I've changed my mind....

Link without paywall.
https://archive.ph/bZIdu

Thanks for posting.

[Downward]

Petrus1983 said:

Rufus Stone said:

AdeTuono said:

12 people sat through a 10 month trial, were presented with all the evidence, and came to a guilty verdict.

What do you know that they don't?

Because juries have never made mistakes before.

Serious question. When things are so complex and medical related - does it make sense to pull 12 random people in to judge something so pivotal? I'd be clueless and easily led. I've dated dr's - it's a foreign language.

I’ve said this. Surely get 12 independent experts in Neonates across the world.

[Downward]

BikeBikeBIke said:

She seems to have been largely convicted on statistics but that makes it a quantifiably safe conviction.

There are stastically lottery odds of her being not-guilty. That meets my definition of beyond reasonable doubt.

A few cases were air through feeding tubes which can only be administered by someone squeezing an em pty syringe into it.

[-crookedtail-]

Senex said:

Not exactly massive evidence of being guilty of murder.

I've had memory loss that could possibly be construed as it suiting me. I've had 'confidential' work documents at home.

I know, I wasn't saying it was. In the cross-examination, she claims to have a good memory, but when asked about something specific about an incident, she can't remember it.

It was not hospital policy to take hand-over documents home, she said that 'they came home with her' and stored loads at both her home and her parents.

It's just weird.

I've no idea whether she is guilty or not. Just saying she didn't come across well & she didn't need to do it (take the stand!)

[General Price]

I bet Christopher Jefferies was guilty on here as soon as he was arrested.

[Petrus1983]

Downward said:

I’ve said this. Surely get 12 independent experts in Neonates across the world.

Totally agree. I respect our justice system - but there's times which it doesn't suit. I'd be happy for the Home Secretary/ Justice Minister etc to approve a different jury system.

[tangerine_sedge]

General Price said:

I bet Christopher Jefferies was guilty on here as soon as he was arrested.

Did Christopher Jefferies get convicted and sent to prison after literally months of investigation and trial, or was he quickly released and sent home?

Multiple people who understand the data and the alleged crimes have looked at the evidence and it has passed their threshold each time to reach this point.

[Skeptisk]

BikeBikeBIke said:

She seems to have been largely convicted on statistics but that makes it a quantifiably safe conviction.

There are stastically lottery odds of her being not-guilty. That meets my definition of beyond reasonable doubt.

I am sure you believe that…up until the point you got convicted on the same logic.

It is also not true as the statistics are not that clear. Statistics never are. They give probabilities not certainties (if it were certain it would be facts).

The standard of guilt in criminal cases is supposed to be very high - beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you are convicting someone (and in this case damning them completely - she is likely at risk of being attacked or killed in prison or on the street if she got out) then you should have some pretty good evidence. I was shocked to find out how circumstantial it was.

I am not saying she is innocent. I am wondering whether there was enough evidence to prove she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

This seems reminiscent of so many other miscarriages of justice like the Birmingham seven. It seems like at times that society needs to find someone to take the blame.

[oyster]

Petrus1983 said:

Downward said:

I’ve said this. Surely get 12 independent experts in Neonates across the world.

Totally agree. I respect our justice system - but there's times which it doesn't suit. I'd be happy for the Home Secretary/ Justice Minister etc to approve a different jury system.

Surely there's always times when it doesn't suit?

How does a jury get randomly selected if the selection itself isn't random?

[ScotHill]

tangerine_sedge said:

Did Christopher Jefferies get convicted and sent to prison after literally months of investigation and trial, or was he quickly released and sent home?

Multiple people who understand the data and the alleged crimes have looked at the evidence and it has passed their threshold each time to reach this point.

Letby was arrested and sent home three times over the course of years, if the evidence was beyond reasonable doubt why did it take so long?

I don’t b think the department was ever objectively investigated for systemic failure, the hospital eventually called in the police and then all work from then on would have been to gather evidence against Letby.

[Greenmantle]

For those who think Letby is guilty what are your views on the Wimbledon school tragedy where 2 girls were killed? Complicated cases require multiple experts with different expertise to pour of the case to get to the truth. If that truth be a guilty or not guilty verdict then so be it.

[GCH]

Lotobear said:

ISTR the NYT ran a sceptical article on the case that cannot be read here - is it now available anywhere?

It was the New Yorker.
Paywall bypass link here: https://archive.ph/AWpyz

[extraT]

“I did this I killed them on purpose. I’m a horrible evil person.”

What did she kill on purpose? What did she do that she described herself as evil?

Saying that, the lack of physical evidence is disturbing.

[ScotHill]

extraT said:

“I did this I killed them on purpose. I’m a horrible evil person.”

What did she kill on purpose? What did she do that she described herself as evil?

Saying that, the lack of physical evidence is disturbing.

That was after her arrests and her suspension from her job, she would’ve been in a fked up state of mind. She also wrote lots of contrary stuff on those notes, doesn’t really mean that much.

[mcdjl]

There's a documentary somewhere (I think bbc, my other half watched it) where they make clear that consultants and her colleagues had worries about her long before these cases but nothing clear cut.
Taking home confidential documents and other offenses would have seen her struck off had she been found innocent anyway